FQURvisioned by

. . .growing f rom within. . .

AppointmentsA Potential Pantomime of Errors

It has been my thought for some time to consider why most companies seem to follow a

process of appointing people which is still largely based on 1950’s behaviour, if not basic

Industrial Revolution management theory.

There are many organisations that sit between the two 'plays' offered below, (depicting 1950 &

2014) although in my experience, most are far closer to the 1950s model and may have reached

the 1960 or even the 1970s, as they struggle to move into modern times, being more

comfortable to do what they already ‘know’.

Companies in The Sunday Times Best Companies To Work For Top 100 List put employee

engagement and meaning ahead of money. Those on this list not only make more profit (around

20% more per annum) they also now attract the best leaders of the future, as top performers

take their talents to where there is a personal values based alignment. An organisation where

they are treated as Human-Beings, employed as a whole person, involved in decisions and not

just another pair of hands on an office assembly line of command and controlled Human-Doings.

I offer you the pantomime: So.....to the play....oops ....pantomime.........

The PantomimeProcessAct 1 Scene 1

� Boss (or panel of 'bosses') interviews based

on the Industrial Revolution model

- both dress as they are expected to dress

(clones)

- both discuss IQ stuff based on CV

and competencies

- both play their theatrical parts according to

the old and dying IQ script - while attempting

to seem 'clever'

- neither really gets to know the other person

- no team members involved (or at worst,

token representative, who feels

totally impotent)

- no character assessment

- no organisational or personal values explored

� Best candidate in bosses eyes - given job

� Lowest salary possible agreed

(money before meaning)

� No organisational vision agreed

� Unsuccessful candidates at best receive

'thanks but no thanks' letter - at worst, hear

nothing...as organisation too busy to let them

know (busyness is the key here to feeling OK)

Overall organisation feels it is doing this person

a favour and paternalism is still rife.

Act 1 Scene 2� New candidate nervously arrives for first day

and meets colleagues for first time

� No idea of culture or background to why

previous person left

� If boss is not liked by team - team now ensure

that the new candidate chosen by boss does

not work out!

OR

While the successful candidate has the skills (IQ)

to do the job there are constant challenges in the

team and eventually they start to disintegrate due

to the virus now in the team that the new member

brings through their character (EQ)

20th Century Pantomime Setting the Scene – pre play rehearsals

• Employee leaves at short notice, most likely (71%) due to poor relationships with their

'boss' - rarely to do with money.

• No succession / transition plan in place (unlike basic sports team with substitutes).

• Advert placed based on qualifications, knowledge and experience (all IQ with the position

seen as almost little or nothing to do with the person. Competence taking precedent

over Character every single time).

• No consultation or involvement of the team involved, as to what is actually needed - as the

business needs or market may have changed.

• Team becomes frustrated as remaining members not only have to fill in for the person who

has spiritually 'already left', but are also impotent to the outcome and thus even further

disengaged. (Employee engagement being the No 1 thing to create successful and

sustainable organisations).

• ‘Boss’ looks at applications (IQ forms or CV) and decides short list (without team knowing)

or worse......hands responsibility over to an external agency, as they don't have the time!

They then sift even further away from the required culture (organisational DNA) thus almost

totally based on a narrow brittle cognitive basis (IQ).

• ‘Boss’ invites candidates for interview or is given the agencies list to consider.

Poor management - leads to demotivated staff - leads to high turnover - high costs (advert,

interview, training, lost time, lost skill & knowledge, disengaged staff, low trust et al) and

thus lower performance / profits.

No time taken here to actually involve the team (empowering and engaging them) to assess

what is actually now required since, inevitably things have changed and thus gain their

support. Invariably there is no time to take time, to employ the right people..!! (Business =

Busyness)

If you wish to explore the use of EQ and values in your appointment process organisation – email or call me.

e – Les@qfour.org.uk m – +44 (0)7770 903266

“To appoint based on an a narrow IQ cognitive competence is to ignore what is far more important - the character (EQ)”

The Pantomime Process(continued)Act 2 Scene 1

6-18 months later - repeat above with even less

desire for a long term outcome, due to even more

'busyness' and total breakdown of trust between

'bosses' and 'workers'.

Act 2 Scene 2The 'play' goes on until the marketplace changes

and the old ways, which are simply repeated, year

after year, are rendered useless - and the

organisation dies, with endless debris.

21st Century playSetting the Scene pre play rehearsals

The organisation has involved the Board and staff in a joint day to determine the values that this organisation stands

for. (If a multinational company then representatives are chosen by the staff to attend such an event) The level of

involvement = the level of commitment.

Values clarified and used to measure the behaviour of everyone involved (e.g. all staff scored out of 10 for each value).

Employee engagement is the key focus and openness and trust are the two priorities.

At best no hierarchy (a la Google) and no titles or bosses or if the organisational structure requires it - then leaders (who

serve and are followed) not bosses (who tell) are appointed.

The team requiring a new member, which is seldom, as staff turnover is minimal <3%, decide what is best for the team

as someone leaves.

An advert is placed emphasising character (EQ) before competence (IQ) as it is the people that are crucial here and not

the process. The values are also writ large as THE key to 'how we do things around here'. Trust is paramount.

Act 1 Scene 1The team involved have already decided how they are going to interview - they have been fully emancipated to do it in

the way that that team chooses. They have chosen who will be involved (all to 2 or 3) and how they will do it to fit with

their culture (ten pin bowling, night out, a dinner, a drink in the pub, walk in hills).

Here the total ownership and responsibility in making it work and ensuring the new member if fully engaged and

effective sits with the team they will be working with. They ALL want it to work.

Act 1 Scene 2The new member of staff arrives knowing most if not all of the team and may even had some introductory days to

settle them before arriving for day 1 of work, fully motivated and at ease.

Act 2 Scene 1The organisation earns more and more profit (or is more and more effective in the public and third sector) as hardly

anyone ever leaves, staff are fully engaged and continually innovating to stay ahead of the game for 'their' organisation.

Act 2 Scene 2Work is a pleasure and every employee also shows by example to the wider world (and their children if they have any)

how the future of work can evolve . They come home each night positive and content with their day.

The organisation is continually in the Top 100 places to work, employee turnover is minimal, innovation is ongoing and

profit or 'success' is a continual upward spiral. W L Gore being the best example of this type of 21st century culture in

Scotland. (no titles, no bosses, no one can tell anyone else what to do, character is key).

Summary Is your organisation

still interviewing and

employing based on

an out-of-date model

in an ever changing

and evolving world?

Are you still lost in

'busyness' rather than

business?

Are you still employing

based on a narrow

brittle concept of IQ -

a small part of the

human brain, rather

than the whole

person?

Do you still seek to

trust a process rather

than a person?

Consider carefully how

you can actively avoid

allowing 'viruses'

(people who do not fit

and who weaken you)

into your organisation

on a regular basis.

Create a more EQ

focussed appointment

process which

everyone will enjoy

and grow from.

And yes, there are slightly better 'versions' of this play e.g. assessment centres, longer interviews, psychometric testing and work simulations - but – at

worst they are still all based on the premise of the paternal 'mill owner', living above the workers on the hill in the valley - looking down and knowing best.